Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Leveller, you confound ethical issues with hate. Wait ... that could be the point .. when you say that you don't hate, do you instead mean that you
have no ethics ?

No. I believe I have ethics. I recognise the difference between right and wrong.
But my ethics are not driven by emotions. They are simply driven by my need to survive and procreate without intentionally harming my fellow man.

I don't see logical argument with the vast majority of people who get involved in the subject of the Middle East. They take sides because of hatred.
Some of that is hereditary - handed down from generation to generation. Some is indoctrinated - Western or Arab media and education. Some is ignorance
and just the need to take a side.

The vast majority of these arguments are sourced in blame.
Who took the land from who. Who did this to who. Who will do this to who. And 99% of the time, both sides can argue their case because there is always
blame to apportion on either side. When you have blame in a situation such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are creating hatred. That hatred
becomes a part of you, wether you like it or not.

You say no?
Watch the Peace Process. If it falls apart it will be from blame. No other reason. "You bombed us first". "No you did".
Then more people die, misery endures, the circle of hatred continues and we're back to worse than square one.

Mycroft, it is nice discussing things with you but you seem unwilling to show your cards. I find that disturbing: you are only asking questions. I
have already posted a lot of controversial things, so i think i have given you the possibility to attack my reasoning if you disagree with it.
Otherwise i must assume that you're fully in-line with my opinion as articulated in my last post adressed at you. It would be nice if you could
relate to it somehow

I didnt see the irony in the first sentence you quoted, apart from the formal opposition between the terms universal and national. That isnt an
contradiction or irony to me, since many societies include people from different origin and sociocultural background. Also, to your question if the
israeli far-right is bent on jewish numerical supremacy in Israel, i must answer yes, since the current events of wall building and racial
discrimination laws target exclusively the numerical variable. If these don't work (and they wont work since israeli palestinians multiply at much
higher rates than jews) there will be deportation of palestinians. Again, the rounding up of palestinian settlements and the discrimination laws leave
no doubt on that.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Leveller, you confound ethical issues with hate. Wait ... that could be the point .. when you say that you don't hate, do you instead mean that you
have no ethics ?

No. I believe I have ethics. I recognise the difference between right and wrong.
But my ethics are not driven by emotions. They are simply driven by my need to survive and procreate without intentionally harming my fellow man.

There we have it. You apply behaviourial standards only to yourself, not to others. A dangerous one-sidedness which explains your discontempt for
morals.

I don't see logical argument with the vast majority of people who get involved in the subject of the Middle East. They take sides because of
hatred. Some of that is hereditary - handed down from generation to generation. Some is indoctrinated - Western or Arab media and education. Some is
ignorance and just the need to take a side.

The vast majority of these arguments are sourced in blame.
Who took the land from who. Who did this to who. Who will do this to who. And 99% of the time, both sides can argue their case because there is always
blame to apportion on either side. When you have blame in a situation such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are creating hatred. That hatred
becomes a part of you, wether you like it or not.

You know nothing about me so stop projecting your individual problems (hate) and stereotypes on me.

You say no?
Watch the Peace Process. If it falls apart it will be from blame. No other reason. "You bombed us first". "No you did".
Then more people die, misery endures, the circle of hatred continues and we're back to worse than square one.
Blame IS hate.

I am not talking about blame or some other wishy-washy concept you may have encountered on TV, but about responsibility. When the situation is complex
and undecidable, there are humanitarian norms, laws and principles to follow. Israel currently doesnt do that. Your amoral view of not assigning
responsibility to anyone opens the door for the worst exactions. You probably could also justify the shoah with your absence of morals. You are
living a fairytale life.

As for you comparing my lack of placing blames on a lack of morals - you are totally wrong.

If I wanted to apportion blame, I could justify the extermination of the entire Arab race and find it morally correct.
It's nothing more than a point of view in a situation like this.
That's the problem that you have - a point of view that contrasts morally against millions of other individuals.
Your point of view will not create peace.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Mycroft, it is nice discussing things with you but you seem unwilling to show your cards. I find that disturbing: you are only asking questions. I
have already posted a lot of controversial things, so i think i have given you the possibility to attack my reasoning if you disagree with it.
Otherwise i must assume that you're fully in-line with my opinion as articulated in my last post adressed at you. It would be nice if you could
relate to it somehow

Yes, you have posted a number of controversial things, no I do not share your opinion.

The purpose of my questions is to discover the assumptions your opinions are based on, to find out where the real disagreement lay. We could argue our
different conclusions, but that would be pointless. I would state my opinion, you would state yours, and we would repeat forever until the
conversation degenerated into name calling. By instead looking for the root of the disagreement, at least there is a chance for meaningful dialogue.
We might still disagree, but at least understanding would be increased.

Originally posted by MokuhadzushiI didnt see the irony in the first sentence you quoted, apart from the formal opposition between the
terms universal and national. That isnt an contradiction or irony to me, since many societies include people from different origin and sociocultural
background. Also, to your question if the israeli far-right is bent on jewish numerical supremacy in Israel, i must answer yes, since the current
events of wall building and racial discrimination laws target exclusively the numerical variable.

Do you mean within the state of Israel? Or are you including the Palestinian-Arabs in the West Bank?

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Leveller, you confound ethical issues with hate. Wait ... that could be the point .. when you say that you don't hate, do you instead mean that you
have no ethics ?

No. I believe I have ethics. I recognise the difference between right and wrong.
But my ethics are not driven by emotions. They are simply driven by my need to survive and procreate without intentionally harming my fellow man.

I don't see logical argument with the vast majority of people who get involved in the subject of the Middle East. They take sides because of hatred.
Some of that is hereditary - handed down from generation to generation. Some is indoctrinated - Western or Arab media and education. Some is ignorance
and just the need to take a side.

The vast majority of these arguments are sourced in blame.
Who took the land from who. Who did this to who. Who will do this to who. And 99% of the time, both sides can argue their case because there is always
blame to apportion on either side. When you have blame in a situation such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are creating hatred. That hatred
becomes a part of you, wether you like it or not.

You say no?
Watch the Peace Process. If it falls apart it will be from blame. No other reason. "You bombed us first". "No you did".
Then more people die, misery endures, the circle of hatred continues and we're back to worse than square one.

Blame IS hate.

Blame is hate?
This is a nonsense Leveller, if somebody kills your mother, aren't you going to blame him to make him go to jail or die?
No instead of that, you will think like> why hate him?
Blame is one Thing
Hate is another

If i am at work and i make a mistake, but somebody else gets the $hit, he will blame me, and that is not hate , is just simply that i am responsable
and therefore he is blaming me, enumering the points for me to understand.
If i don't know how to help somebody doing something, and he is doing it good, i get blamed, but he doesn't hate me, he wants to learn from those
mistakes.

Your sentence is pure crap, Hate is not just irrational, you can hate with reasons, and good reasons, nobody said that hate is good, but sometimes is
right.
Look how much hate created 11-s, was that from blaming? or was that for the 5000 dead?

Dude serious your argument doesn't make any sense,
and not just that, think about when started all these tension in the middle east, maybe was 1948???
Was there before any suicide bombers? was there any islamist terrorist?
Think about the change and U tell me the reasons...

Why the concern ? because in 20 to thirty years islam will be the predominant faith in Israel. That is exactly why the marriage law was instilled. The
wall also serves no other purpose than to keep the palestinian immigration out. Ultimately, since these strategies will fail, there will be
deportation of palestinian israelis to the reservates.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
Why the concern ? because in 20 to thirty years islam will be the predominant faith in Israel. That is exactly why the marriage law was instilled. The
wall also serves no other purpose than to keep the palestinian immigration out. Ultimately, since these strategies will fail, there will be
deportation of palestinian israelis to the reservates.

So you hate Zionism because of how Israel might respond to a demographic crisis that won't come for another 20 to 30 years?!

Well, put your mind at ease. While the Arab birth rates in Israel are higher than Jewish birth rates, they are not so much higher that in
themselves they would threaten the Jewish majority in Israel within the next 50 years. Further, the population increase of Arabs within Israel is
not as large as the birth rates suggest they should be. The reason? Arabs are emigrating from Israel to other Arab countries. The educational benefits
of living in Israel and the West Bank make these people valuable to the rest of the Arab world. There is money to be made in the oil producing Middle
East, and an Arab with an education can write his own ticket.

But that doesn't mean that the potential of this specific threat has been lost to the portion of the Arab world that wants to see Israel go away.
They recognize that an Arab majority within Israel would accomplish the same thing that the Arab world has failed to accomplish through force of
arms.

Wahid Abdel Maguid is the chief editor of the Arab Strategic Report, a product of the Al-Ahram Institute, an Egyptian think tank. He outlined a 5
point plan to enact exactly this strategy. The plan is as follows:

1) Maintain the intifada to discourage Jewish immigration to Israel and encourage Israelis to emigrate.

2) Limit or reverse immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union.

3) Bring Israeli Arabs into close alignment with Palestinians in the West Bank, encourage them to reject their identity as Israeli citizens and give
them decision-making roles in the anti-Israel campaign.

4) Promote an influx of Arabs into Israel through illegal immigration and marriage.

5) Build worldwide condemnation of Israel as a "racist" state to discourage Israeli countermeasures such as additional restrictions of immigration,
emigration incentives, and increasing resources to prevent illegal immigration. Sound familiar?

How successful will this latest strategy from the Arab world be? Only time will tell.

BTW, part of the purpose of the marriage law may well be to prevent Arabs from gaining citizenship, but it’s also a security measure against
terrorism. This is not racism. Every nation has the right to place limits on who is granted citizenship. Every nation has the right to be selective in
granting this privilege.

Yes, in addition to security, one purpose of the wall is to prevent Arab immigration. Illegal Arab immigration. If it were legal, a wall
wouldn’t stop it.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Hmm Moku....I don't seem to recall Hitler "deporting" Jews...
Can you refresh me here a bit?

regards
seekerof

Hitler started deporting Jews until according to some people said he was provoked by a zionist and hitler said "i shall wipe them all out". Thats
when hitler started planning to kill all jews. I'll try and find a site about it

While European Jews were in mortal danger, Zionist leaders in America deliberately provoked and enraged Hitler. They began in 1933 by initiating a
worldwide boycott of Nazi goods. Dieter von Wissliczeny, Adolph Eichmann's lieutenant, told Rabbi Weissmandl that in 1941 Hitler flew into a rage
when U.S. Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wise, in the name of the entire Jewish people, "declared war on Germany". Hitler fell on the floor, bit the carpet
and vowed: "Now I'll destroy them. Now I'll destroy them." In Jan. 1942, he convened the "Wannsee Conference" where the "final solution" took
shape

Seekerof, between 1933 and 1941, the nazis gradually enforced legal discrimination and marriage laws concerning jews, and "rounded them up" in
Ghettoes with intent to move them to Madagascar, a colony the nazis newly acquired by victory over france, which jewish representants refused (no
other country agreed to let jews immigrate-> evian conference), . That's deportation and resettlement. Exactly the same has been happening in
Israel/Palestine in the last fourty years.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.